Who has the best Special Forces ?

Originally posted by elpapa
I dont an expert on all this jive but I am just wonering about how rated the irish rangers are, so I hear that they are highly regarded in certain
circles but no mention of them here, any info????????????

Irish Rangers are a light infantry force, they are not a "special force" in the mould being discussed here, something more like the Paras after
they've jumped out of their Hercs or the Royals after they've left HMS Ocean.

there's a little SF unit in Poland called GROM which is losely based around the US navy seals, they've been operating in Iraq indepently or along
side the USSF's and have proved to be just as equal and have a fierce rep. in reguard to the best SF of the world there's been alot of talk of the
Australian SAS which is based around the British SAS, talk of the Australian SAS recent ops seem to make people think there a 'better' force. in
many respects this is wrong as the idea of a SF is for them to conduct ops covertly on the world scale. the British SAS ops ( that is publically
known) are very few, every major conflict in every part of the world has felt the effect of the British SAS, either through training, planting caches
of equipment (esp during the cold war!)and out right force. its not put on the tv or the papers for obv reasons. the British SAS of which most other
countries try to copy in some respect has got to be the best, the USSF's have dif units for dif events ie. US rangers couldnt do what Delta do visa
versa whilst the british SAS are cross trained to become a highly training massivly effective fighting unit.

Originally posted by tommy29
there's been alot of talk of the Australian SAS which is based around the British SAS, talk of the Australian SAS recent ops seem to make people
think there a 'better' force. in many respects this is wrong as the idea of a SF is for them to conduct ops covertly on the world scale.

No, you are wrong.

We know about these ops because the government is telling us, not the media and not the SAS. This is politics, a right-wing government using the
military to make it look good and "tough on terrorism" and also to convince a small nation that we actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

We don't know about these operations because the SAS walk into battle with their regimental crest being held high.

The SAS conduct their ops covertly and successfully. The government PR guys then tell the army they want to talk about it, the army let them know what
they can say and can't say. The SAS are not announcing these stories to the world.

It was a surprise to many Australian soldiers when President Bush announced the identity of a dead trooper in Afghanistan, the Australian military had
no plans to do so.

As someone mentioned just a few posts ealier, most of the Special Forces help each other out. Like the fact that the SAS helped train Delta in
selective shooting. I'm sure somewhere along the line these guys train together to learn different skills from each other such as maybe the US Green
Berets helping teach the UK Marine Commandos counter inusrgency tactices(just an example, dont know to what extent they have worked together or if at
all). I still htink this is an impossible argument to win.

Originally posted by tommy29
the British SAS ops ( that is publically known) are very few, every major conflict in every part of the world has felt the effect of the British SAS,
either through training, planting caches of equipment (esp during the cold war!)and out right force.

Bah, the biggest special operations war of the last century was Vietnam, the British NEVER served there. American and Australian jungle fighting
skills were honed to near perfection in that theater, so much so that the 22 SAS is trained by these 2 countries in that terrain.
Australian SASR had a kill ratio of 500-1 and never lost a trooper in combat, the VC and NVA feared these soldiers and nicknamed them " Phantoms of
the Jungle ".

There is nothing special about 22 SAS apart fromt he fact that they have had the most books written about and by them. Hardly this ultra secret unit
people make it out to be. As we all know know Bravo 20 by Andy McNab was mostly fabrication, so much s that he wuoldn't dare show his face at
Hereford.

Another reason teh Brit SAS may be seen as the best is because they can trace tehir history back to WWII. However other countries such as Australia
and America had special forces operating under doifferent names than they have today.

Australia's Z Special Force conducted arguably the most daring mission in WWII. They travelled thousands of km's behind enemy from Australia into
Singapore Harbour where they proceeded to sink 50 000 tonnes of Japanese shipping with limpet mines. I challnege anyone to find a mission ore daring
and dangerous than that.

i agree with the dude above me, a special forces soldier is a 'SPECIAL FORCES SOLDIER'...put it this way i wouldn't mess with a special forces
soldier from ANY nation.

but the SAS take some beating - i think the SAS are the world's most high profile/yet most secretive special force unit in the world.

ive heard of the 'delta force' before, but thats probably because of the film with chuck norris in.
[edit on 26-4-2006 by st3ve_o]

You forget about Grey Fox. If they exist, they are probalby the most secretive unit in the world(dont think they best, there are pretty much intel,
but I imagine have commando capabilities). While not either confirmed nor denied heres a few links I could find on them, including one from this
site.

Since their beginnings in 1954, the SASR has lost more men in training than on combat operations, due to the nature of their training
regime.

That says a damn lot right there.

During their previous deployment in Afghanistan, Australian SAS troops came to be held in very high regard by other coalition partners, and
subsequently, were directly sought after by the United States to take part in the 2003 war in Iraq. The SAS's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq led
President George W. Bush to describe them as being amongst the best soldiers in the world.

"tough on terrorism" and also to convince a small nation that we actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

with many respects the british SAS have been commended by the likes of gen. schwarzkopf who has much more information than we have, but jungle warfare
was one of the expertise of the SAS during Borneo in the early 60's before 'nam. and in the scheme of things this small nation does matter, its
special forces are the best in the world, and are used world wide, catching war criminals in bosnia, cartels in south america, iraq. during the 80's
the royal marines along side the SBS were tasked to help defend northern europe from the USSR, if not the best why give this small nations special
forces such jobs and responsbilites across the world?

Originally posted by tommy29
the British SAS ops ( that is publically known) are very few, every major conflict in every part of the world has felt the effect of the British SAS,
either through training, planting caches of equipment (esp during the cold war!)and out right force.

Bah, the biggest special operations war of the last century was Vietnam,

Oh, please. The biggest special operations war of the last century was WW2 and the Brits invented the special ops.

the British NEVER served there. American and Australian jungle fighting skills were honed to near perfection in that theater, so much so that
the 22 SAS is trained by these 2 countries in that terrain.

Bull. Australians learnt to jungle fight on Kokoda. They carried those skills to Malaya. It was the Sergeants from Malaya who instructed the Diggers
prior to departure for VN. Who led the charge in Malaya? The Brits. Who won their counter-insurgency war in SEAsia? The Brits. Who prevented
Indonesian troops from infiltrating Sarawak and Sabah? The Brits.

Who lost their counter-insurgency war in SEAsia? The Yanks, with our help.

Australian SASR had a kill ratio of 500-1 and never lost a trooper in combat, the VC and NVA feared these soldiers and nicknamed them "
Phantoms of the Jungle ".

I really hope you have a source for that figure. The SAS weren't in Nui Dat for combat, they were there for intelligence gathering. ie listening and
watching.
If they never lost a Trooper, how can they have a kill ration of 500-1?

There is nothing special about 22 SAS apart fromt he fact that they have had the most books written about and by them.

And perhaps Prince's Gate, 1980. Death on the Rock. Years in NI. Training the Mujahideen. Training the Sultan of Oman's Forces. Oh, yeah, Google
Mirbat.

Hardly this ultra secret unit people make it out to be. As we all know know Bravo 20 by Andy McNab was mostly fabrication, so much s that he
wuoldn't dare show his face at Hereford.

Do we? Read Soldier 5.

Another reason teh Brit SAS may be seen as the best is because they can trace tehir history back to WWII. However other countries such as
Australia and America had special forces operating under doifferent names than they have today.

Which were different units.

Australia's Z Special Force conducted arguably the most daring mission in WWII. They travelled thousands of km's behind enemy from Australia
into Singapore Harbour where they proceeded to sink 50 000 tonnes of Japanese shipping with limpet mines. I challnege anyone to find a mission ore
daring and dangerous than that.

Or perhaps even one that was directly attributable to Force Z. Iven Lyon, the raid commander, was a Brit, not even an Aussie and not a part of Force
Z's structure. You might want to read "The Heroes", or even watch the dodgy telemovie.

The Royal Marines paddled canoes up a river in occupied and heavily patrolled France and did the same thing. The Army and Royal Marine Commandoes
(with RN assistance!) rammed HMS Campbelltown into the Normandie Dock, blowing it up and destroying the only facility outside Germany big enough for
Bismark and Tirpitz. At the same time they rampaged through the streets of one of the most heavily garrisoned port cities in France. I challenge
anyone to find a more spectacular and successful (in objectives versus outcomes terms) or daring mission than that.

How about John Frost of A Bridge Too Far leading 2 Para to steal the Wurzburg Radar?

Originally posted by Sariel
22 SAS and/or 14th Intelligence Company (although most in Int 14 are from the SAS) in my humble opinion.As has been stated previously a lot depends on
what you are trying to achieve.

Australian SASR had a kill ratio of 500-1 and never lost a trooper in combat, the VC and NVA feared these soldiers and nicknamed them "
Phantoms of the Jungle ".

I really hope you have a source for that figure. The SAS weren't in Nui Dat for combat, they were there for intelligence gathering. ie listening and
watching.
If they never lost a Trooper, how can they have a kill ration of 500-1?

I have seen this figure before. The SASR DID lose one man in Vietnam, but only one. The conservative estimate for SASR kills in this theatre was
approx 500 VC. This tallies with the 500/1 kill ratio quoted. The SASR had a phenominal reputation in the jungles of SE Asia, considerably more so
than theit yank counterparts.

I'm not a big SF groupie anyway. I believe that so much of what they do is blown completely out of proportion by the media that they can't fart
without it being associated with some sort of secret mission. They are generally excellent soldies who fulfil a role, but that is all they are. They
have more physical strength and stamina than the average squaddy, and their soldiering skills need to be honed. However they are simply a trade who
fulfill a role, much i the same way that a doctor, VM or any other trade does.

Let’s not get too worked up about the SASR in Viet Nam or anywhere else.

During the counter-insurgency war in the Viet Nam of the late 60s and early 70s, the SASR had its fair share of cock-up’s; not least of all in the
area of one of the most famous of infantry close quarter combat.

It was here, in and around the area of Nui Dat and Long Tan, in the Province of Phuoc Tuy, South Viet Nam that he SASR’s tasking included recce
patrols, intelligence gathering and ambushing,

And it was here, according to some, that the SASR had their biggest failure. At least three x 4/6 man patrols were tasked to locate elements of two
VC/NVA units, D445 and/or D446, who were believed to be main force VC and were operating in the area.

That SASR found no trace of the enemy, is a matter of record. But that was hardly surprising. Terrain, conditions and appalling weather, all conspired
against the SASR. But, militarily, it was still a failure.

Having said that, the SASR and RAR units deployed to Viet Nam had more success than their American counterparts – given their size and lack of
proper equipment.

For further information about Australion forces in Viet Nam, try The Battle of Long Tan by Lex MacAuley – an excellent read.

Originally posted by Sariel
22 SAS and/or 14th Intelligence Company (although most in Int 14 are from the SAS) in my humble opinion.As has been stated previously a lot depends on
what you are trying to achieve.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Sariel]

Sorry, but you are quite wrong! SAS troopers undergo secondment to 14 int as part of their cross training and deployment. 14 Int are NOT SAS, and are
part of the Intelligence Corps.

Greyfox includes a mixture of Delta and SAS, etc. No one knows of the numbers, but their name appeared during the Iraq war. Its believed to be a kinda
sabotage and assassination squad, but its unknown. The group does exist though.

Originally posted by Sariel
22 SAS and/or 14th Intelligence Company (although most in Int 14 are from the SAS) in my humble opinion.As has been stated previously a lot depends on
what you are trying to achieve.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by Sariel]

Sorry, but you are quite wrong! SAS troopers undergo secondment to 14 int as part of their cross training and deployment. 14 Int are NOT SAS, and are
part of the Intelligence Corps.

As I previously posted, 14 Intell does not exist any more, it is now part of SRR (Special Reconnaisance
Regiment) as of 2004~5. I may be wrong but I think the Pathfinders role will follow suit.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.